Summary of Court Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant pleaded guilty on re‑arraignment to one count of attempted murder and one count of having an article with a blade or point before Judge Sloan in The Court on 17 October 2024. On 6 December 2024 Judge Sloan sentenced the Appellant to 20 years' imprisonment for the attempted murder and 12 months' imprisonment for the bladed article offence, to run concurrently. The Appellant renewed an application for leave to appeal his sentence after a single judge refused permission. The Crown Prosecution Service filed a Respondent's Notice opposing the application following the single judge's refusal.

The factual background, as found and summarised by the sentencing judge, is that the Plaintiff (the injured partner of the Appellant) and the Appellant had lived together. The Appellant had experienced job loss, anxiety and problems with alcohol. After a period in a residential alcohol rehabilitation facility, the Appellant resumed drinking. On the day of the offence the Appellant took an eight‑inch kitchen knife from the house and, after an interaction in which the Plaintiff indicated the relationship was over, followed the Plaintiff outside and stabbed her multiple times. Neighbours intervened, preventing further injury. The Plaintiff required hospital treatment, surgery to repair wounds and a fractured finger, and suffered lasting scarring and psychological harm. The Appellant fled, was arrested the following day at a caravan, and made no comment in interview. The knife was recovered with biological material matching the Plaintiff's DNA. The Appellant had no prior convictions.

The sentencing judge received a pre‑sentence report, psychiatric reports from two consultant forensic psychiatrists (each with addenda), a victim personal statement, prosecution and defence sentencing material, character references and other mitigation, and additional prison information. The Appellant was represented at sentencing by Attorney Mehta and on the renewed application by Attorney Smith (pro bono).

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge failed to give sufficient weight to the cumulative mitigation in the Appellant's favour, including the Appellant's mental health difficulties.
2. Whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing the Appellant's culpability—specifically whether the judge should have reduced culpability due to mental health issues identified in the defence psychiatric evidence.
3. Whether the sentencing judge failed to reduce the sentence sufficiently to reflect the short distance over which the knife was carried to the scene.
4. Whether the sentencing judge was wrong to assess harm as Category 2 (serious physical or psychological harm) rather than a lesser category between Category 2 and Category 3.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The sentencing judge did not give adequate weight to the cumulative mitigation, including good character, remorse, employment history, mitigation provided by references, and the Appellant's conduct in custody.
• The judge failed to give appropriate weight to the Appellant's mental health difficulties and their effect on culpability, particularly in light of the conclusions of Attorney Kahtan's psychiatric report which suggested that earlier treatment might have prevented the offence.
• The judge did not sufficiently reduce the sentence to reflect the short distance the Appellant carried the knife to the scene.
• The judge was wrong to categorise the harm as Category 2 rather than a lesser category between Category 2 and Category 3.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Respondent contested that the judge had erred in law or principle and argued that the sentencing judge correctly applied the relevant guidelines on attempted murder and domestic abuse.
• The Respondent relied on Attorney Chakrabarti's psychiatric evidence as more measured and impartial and submitted that the judge was entitled to prefer that evidence over Attorney Kahtan's reports, which the Respondent described as prolix, unfocused and insufficiently impartial.
• The Respondent maintained that the harm was appropriately categorised as Category 2 given the number of stab wounds and the profound psychological impact on the Plaintiff, and that the sentencing range and ultimate sentence were within the guideline range and not excessive.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined both the sentencing judge's reasoning and the single judge's refusal to grant permission to appeal. The analysis proceeded along the following lines, based on the material in the papers and the hearing:

1. The sentencing judge had a comprehensive set of materials for mitigation and psychiatric assessment, including reports and addenda from two consultant forensic psychiatrists, a pre‑sentence report, victim personal statement, character references and other mitigation.
2. The sentencing judge assessed culpability under the Sentencing Council guideline for attempted murder and the domestic abuse guideline. He placed the offence in culpability category B (high culpability) because the Appellant took a knife to the scene and used it to attack the Plaintiff, while noting that the distance the knife was carried was relatively short and that this fact could be taken into account in mitigation.
3. The judge assessed harm as Category 2 (serious physical or psychological harm) because there were multiple stab wounds and significant psychological trauma to the Plaintiff. The judge concluded the harm and its effects were life‑long in their impact.
4. Applying the guideline for a Category B2 offence, the judge identified a starting point of 25 years' custody with a category range of 20 to 30 years. He indicated he would reduce the notional sentence from the starting point to reflect the short distance the knife was carried, and then balanced aggravating and mitigating factors to determine the final sentence.
5. The judge identified a range of aggravating factors: voluntary intoxication at the time of the offence despite recent detoxification and warnings; the domestic context and abuse of trust; seizure of the Plaintiff's phone to prevent help being sought; the public nature of the attack and intervention by neighbours; and persistence in the attack despite pleas to stop. Mitigating factors included the Appellant's lack of previous convictions, positive character material, remorse, limited premeditation, and mental health difficulties which the judge judged did not reduce culpability substantially because those difficulties were significantly exacerbated by voluntary alcohol consumption.
6. The judge allowed about a little over 13% credit for the Appellant's guilty pleas on re‑arraignment. Balancing all factors, the judge imposed 20 years' imprisonment for attempted murder and 12 months' concurrency for the bladed article offence; an indefinite restraining order and a deprivation order for the knife were also made.
7. On review, the single judge and the court on the renewed application closely considered the psychiatric reports and addenda. The court agreed with the single judge's characterisation of Attorney Kahtan's reports as prolix, unfocused and lacking impartiality, specifically noting parts of an addendum that sought to rebut the pre‑sentence report. The court considered Attorney Chakrabarti's evidence to be more measured, focused and impartial and held that the sentencing judge was entitled to prefer that evidence.
8. The court concluded that the sentencing judge was entitled to find that the Appellant's mental health did not lower his culpability for the attempted murder on the evidence available and that there was no arguable basis to challenge the assessment of harm as Category 2. The court observed that after allowing guilty‑plea credit the effective sentence was below the notional starting point in the guideline and that the ultimate sentence fell within the range open to the sentencing judge.
9. Accordingly, the court found the Appellant's grounds of appeal to be not arguable and declined to interfere with the sentencing judge's decision.

Holding and Implications

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL REFUSED.

Holding: The court refused the Appellant's renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence. The court agreed with the single judge that the Appellant's grounds of appeal were not arguable and that there was no basis to interfere with the sentencing judge's assessment of culpability, harm, or the weight given to psychiatric evidence.

Implications: The direct legal effect is that the sentence imposed by Judge Sloan stands: 20 years' imprisonment for the attempted murder and 12 months' imprisonment to be served concurrently for the bladed article offence, together with an indefinite restraining order and a deprivation order in relation to the knife. The court indicated that no new legal principle or precedent was established by this decision; it upheld the exercise of sentencing discretion and the judge's evidential assessments in this case.